Dryfining technology lol, oh no Pasboz don't tell me they are out trying to promote that thing again.
A read of the Dryfining factsheets just highlight how far off the mark Dryfining actually is -
http://www.greatriverenergy.com/makingelectricity/newprojects/dryfining_factsheet.pdf
" CO2 reduced by 4%"
Hardly inspiring. How much does Coldry reduce by? About 40 %.
http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/p...-capture-thermodynamic-modelling/online/94601
"The resulting heat available for coal drying then suggested a fuel moisture reduction from 60% to 54% is possible." Is that all?
No wonder the emissions reduction is tiny.
Cant be exported either...oh I wonder why??
Viewing the Dryfining data , to which their data is actually carried out on what one would consider quite decent lignite home turf lignite which it gained some finger clapping by the energy council in the US, where it reduced moisture content from 38% to 29% and it increased fuel energy from ( US metrics first) 6,200 BTU/lb to 7,100 BTU/lb or in what we know as kcal/kg over here......3410 to 3910 kcal....is it any wonder why it hasn't set the stage on fire????
Compare those calculations with the Coldry process where moisture content was reduced from 59.3% to 12% (against Dryfining 38% to 29%) and kcal increased from 2006 to 5874 against Dryfining (3410 to 3910) or ...basically, Coldry increased product energy by 193% to Dryfining's 15%.... Isn't that a drastic difference and especially considering that Coldry's resulting figures were based on Victorian coal with a massive 58% as recieved moisture content lignite in comparison to the the 38% moisture content from Dryfining's home ground of Coal Creek Station mine.....
But! how would Dryfining deal with the likes saturated India or Victorian coal???
I won't bore you with a full rundown, but back in 2010 Worley parsons carried out a study on Dryfining for AGL for Loy Lang A; hence it's all in the data sheets and the studies -
On Victorian lignite the results were ...drum roll!
"The resulting heat available for coal drying then suggested a fuel moisture reduction from 60% to 54% is possible."
Dryfining really does struggle on saturated lignite.....but isn't that exactly was Indian lignite is! So why on earth would the Indians even consider Dryfining over a far superiors technology which is coldry
http://decarboni.se/publications/po...ic-modelling/33-description-coal-drying-plant
The Dryfining plant also requires high temperature waste heat up around 170 to 190 degrees, so it needs to be bolted hard up against the plant at the ID fans!!!...Coldry only requires waste heat of about 30-35 degrees.
It's quite fascinating how the 'great researchers / Google masters / trolls ' are so selective in their research.
Dryfining , lol, pull the other one; or , as Pasboz says 'laughable'
OW
(20min delay)